Cobol - Re: Mainframers ... according to RW (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Author

Re: Mainframers ... according to RW (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Howard Brazee

2004-11-21, 3:55 am

On 13-Nov-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Your experience indicates that it is physically impossible for you to be
> familiar with what a fraction of mainframe programmers do, hence the
> request for evidence of *any* sort.

My experience also is extremely limited. I've only worked in 4 states, with
virtually all of my work on mainframes from various manufacturers. I've only
worked at a dozen or two shops out of the thousands and thousands out there.
So it isn't surprising when my experience varies tremendously from his
conclusions.

I would have to do extensive research before I could have a similar degree of
confidence.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-21, 3:55 am

In article <cnajck$hjq$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 13-Nov-2004, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>My experience also is extremely limited. I've only worked in 4 states, with
>virtually all of my work on mainframes from various manufacturers. I've only
>worked at a dozen or two shops out of the thousands and thousands out there.
>So it isn't surprising when my experience varies tremendously from his
>conclusions.
>
>I would have to do extensive research before I could have a similar degree of
>confidence.

Other folks do other things, of course... but please pardon my imprecison
in what you've quoted; of course Mr Wagner is familiar with 'what a
fraction of mainframe programmers do', the question is the significance of
this fraction.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

On 15 Nov 2004 11:21:45 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <cnajck$hjq$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
>Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>Other folks do other things, of course... but please pardon my imprecison
>in what you've quoted; of course Mr Wagner is familiar with 'what a
>fraction of mainframe programmers do', the question is the significance of
>this fraction.

It depends on the deviation in the population. The smaller the
deviation, the more likely a sample represents the population (plus or
minus the confidence interval, CI). Suppose, hypothetically, we were
sampling a batch of data files (somehow) known to be identical. In
that case a sample size of one would tell us everything about the
batch.

The intelligent questions are:
... How much deviation was seen between samples?
... Were the samples biased? In other words, were they all taken from a
specialized subset.
... Was the finding positive (it was in this case) or negative? A
negative finding requires many more samples.
... Might there be a third factor causing both variables? In this case,
self-selection and employer-selection would be a likely suspects.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

In article <hulip0logb9765jkq22pc5b0g8jrjj8frd@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2004 11:21:45 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Suppose, hypothetically, we were
>sampling a batch of data files (somehow) known to be identical.

Suppose, Mr Wagner, we try not to compare human beings, with their
associated complexities, to 'a batch of data files (somehow) known to be
identical'.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

On 15 Nov 2004 20:43:25 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
>Suppose, Mr Wagner, we try not to compare human beings, with their
>associated complexities, to 'a batch of data files (somehow) known to be
>identical'.

Tell it to A.C. Nielsen and others who use statistics on human beings.
Tell them 'I'm unique, just like everyone else.' Also, stop taking
prescription drugs because they were all validated using statistics.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

In article <c66jp0l51s6vraqafqjg0265tea5mn0hkl@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 2004 20:43:25 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>Tell it to A.C. Nielsen and others who use statistics on human beings.

When this person posts to comp.lang.cobol I just might do that, Mr Wagner;
until then you've made a supposition and I countered it.

>Tell them 'I'm unique, just like everyone else.'

When I think such a thing is worth telling, Mr Wagner, I just might do
that; until then I suggest that the 'we' you mention above try not to
compare human beings, with their associated complexities, to 'a batch of
data files (somehow) known to be identical.'

>Also, stop taking
>prescription drugs because they were all validated using statistics.

When such statistical studies, Mr Wagner, compare human beings to 'a batch
of data files (somehow) known to be identical' I just might do that; now
that you've tried to throw up some dust to obscure the issue the issue
remains: of course you, Mr Wagner, are familiar with 'what a fraction of
mainframe programmers do', the question is the significance of this
fraction.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

On 19 Nov 2004 11:54:36 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote
>
>
>That may well be true. Perhaps the Grade A shops wouldn't hire you, or
>didn't need contractors - _because_ their employees were motivated and
>progressive.
>
>You seem to imply that you personally are the _only_ programmer above
>'Grade C', at least in IBM shops. You have stated that your
>statistics are faultless and thus _every_ programmer in IBM shops is
>two levels below your standard.
>
>Actually, I believe the real reason is that any shop above Grade C
>wouldn't let you touch their code with a barge pole. That fits your
>'evidence' exactly.

You have no evidence for any of these claims. You're making up 'facts'
to support a pre-formed conclusion.

>
>Strange that, they seem so much like you in that respect.

I don't pre-judge skill based on nationality or other social factors.
Some of the best code I've seen was written by people who seemed
unlikely candidates based on meeting and talking to them. Conversely,
I've met people whose convincing talk was given lie by their crappy
code.

Truth is in code. All the rest is just rhetoric. I've posted lots of
code here. I wish others would do the same.

Richard

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote

>
> It depends on the deviation in the population. The smaller the
> deviation, the more likely a sample represents the population (plus or
> minus the confidence interval, CI). Suppose, hypothetically, we were
> sampling a batch of data files (somehow) known to be identical. In
> that case a sample size of one would tell us everything about the
> batch.

This is exactly why your opinion of yourself differs from what others
may think of you. It is quite true that that if there is a small
deviation then a small sample represents the population. The problem
is that you _start_ with your preconceived _conclusion_ that 'all
mainframe programmers are the same' and then use that to justify the
vast generalisations that you make from inadequate sampling.

> The intelligent questions are:
> .. How much deviation was seen between samples?

Given that the samples you report and samples reported by others, and
by my direct observation, then they show a large deviation.

> .. Were the samples biased? In other words, were they all taken from a
> specialized subset.

The samples may also be biased by, for example, you being selective
about which programmers you include as 'mainframe'. If they don't fit
your preconceived notion about how you want to characterise them then
you may put them in the 'PC' categorey but working on mainframes 'by
mistake'.

> .. Was the finding positive (it was in this case) or negative? A
> negative finding requires many more samples.

There yer go then.

> .. Might there be a third factor causing both variables? In this case,
> self-selection and employer-selection would be a likely suspects.

Exactly. Your employers may be selecting the sites that you work in
and thus the samples you are exposed to for much the same reason that
they have the employees that you see. You may be working in decrepet,
old-fashioned, poorly programmed sites, _because_ of your particular
qualities and experience.

Or possibly, not working in modern, progressive sites for those same
reasons.

Richard

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote

> Suppose, hypothetically, we were
> sampling a batch of data files (somehow) known to be identical.

The problem is Robert, _How_ did the tapes get to be 'known' to be
identical ? That is the bit that you just gloss over.

In the case of 'mainframe programmers', it seems that you 'know' they
are all identical because it suits your political agenda, you 'made it
up'.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

On 22 Nov 2004 02:27:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <1ri2q0daadhjft28akko2cnf3spp0i5922@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>Mr Wagner, who posted that 'Russian programmers don't do well because
>they're so opinionated' above? That certainly seems to be a pre-judgement
>of skill based on nationality... what am I missing here?

I did not comment on their programming skill.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

In article <vk74q091pgvfknbshn3uto7bgr2kb6ol6l@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2004 02:27:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>I did not comment on their programming skill.

It seems a bit late to qualify it in this manner, Mr Wagner; your
assertion was 'I don't pre-judge skill...' with no mention of programming.

DD

Richard

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote

>
> You have no evidence for any of these claims. You're making up 'facts'
> to support a pre-formed conclusion.

The evidence is exactly the observations that you have provided, plus
the rather different evidence of my own experience and that provided
by others here.

Your claim was that all sites you had seen were 'Grade C' which is
quite consistent with you never having been in 'Grade B' and 'Grade A'
sites.

>
> I don't pre-judge skill based on nationality or other social factors.

You have stated quite clearly your rather low opinions of American
mainframe programmers, pre-judging those you have never met.

> Truth is in code. All the rest is just rhetoric. I've posted lots of
> code here.

You've posted lots of rhetoric.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

On 19 Nov 2004 08:06:24 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <tboqp09nq9rne2ae6ps0f75cinc5kn7mh1@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Your experience, Mr Wagner, seems to be different than the experiences of
>others... a wonderful, wide world that has such variations, isn't it?

Yes, we should celebrate diversity! New Yorkers were in the vanguard
fifty years ago. Now they mostly grumble about foreigners like people
in Peoria.

>
>This might be a common behavior, Mr Wagner... when you were in the company
>of soldiers do you find they more frequently discuss their hardships or
>their easy assignments?
>
>(Aeschylus, an playwright and general in Ancient Greece, once noted that
>'Great hardships make for later entertainments.')

My military experience is admittedly atypical. We discussed neither
hardships nor easy assignments; we discussed stealth techniques that
had outsmarted the enemy, thereby passing them on in an educational
way.

My hope is for this forum to function in a similar way.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:16:27 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>My impression is that shops that are REQUIRED to hire contractors often have
>less experienced and less knowledgeable (and possibly less productive)
>programmers. This is a "generalization" - but one always ask WHY did a shop
>hire a contractor? Was it *just* that they were (temporarily?) under-staffed -
>or was there some problem
>
>Shops that use only "in-house employees" may (but I agree don't always) have
>better programmers and programming "styles".
>
>Again, Robert, from your statements, you see (IBM) mainframe COBOL code
>
> - infrequently (two years in 20+ actually working in mainframe shops)

I see IBM mainframe code every day, while actually working in
mainframe shops (soon to be Unix shops). In places where mainframers
are still calling the shots, I'm compelled to write NEW CODE in their
style.

> - that the shop wants to MOVE off its mainframe environment (for whatever
>reason taking them out of the "ongoing commitment to the IBM mainframe - by
>definition)

'The Shop' doesn't speak with a single voice. Management wants one
thing; techies want another.

>However,
> the simple fact is that you have seen one type of code and I (and others) have
>seen another.

That breaks the hegemony of a single IBM mainframe style. You're
saying some IBM shops get it right and others don't. My complaint is
against the ones who don't. Sounds like we're in agreement!

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

In article <af35q0tbg0i6pcal4l6troe95duat0pd8j@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2004 08:06:24 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Yes, we should celebrate diversity! New Yorkers were in the vanguard
>fifty years ago. Now they mostly grumble about foreigners like people
>in Peoria.

Ahhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when a New Yorker could be in a vanguard
such as *ten* New Yorkers cannot, today!

Mr Wagner, you might want to take a look at a play originally conceived
nigh sixty years ago and written nigh fifty years ago... 'West Side
Story'. The characters don't seem to share your glowing view of how New
Yorkers were 'in the vanguard' in those days.

>
>
>My military experience is admittedly atypical.

It might just be more than your military experience which is such, Mr
Wagner... but one can be 'in the company of soldiers' during one's
civilian days, as well.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-23, 8:55 am

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:af35q0tbg0i6pcal4l6troe95duat0pd8j@
4ax.com...
> On 19 Nov 2004 08:06:24 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
> Yes, we should celebrate diversity! New Yorkers were in the vanguard
> fifty years ago. Now they mostly grumble about foreigners like people
> in Peoria.
>
company[color=darkred]
>
> My military experience is admittedly atypical. We discussed neither
> hardships nor easy assignments; we discussed stealth techniques that
> had outsmarted the enemy, thereby passing them on in an educational
> way.
>
> My hope is for this forum to function in a similar way.
>
Cool!!!

RULES FOR STEALTH COBOL.(These techniques are Top Secret and Company
Private. When properly applied they will outsmart the enemy, who will never
be able to crack our COBOL applications.)

1. All data and procedure names will be encrypted around your maternal
Grandmother's maiden name.

2. You will not reveal the maiden names of any of your family to anyone, on
pain of 3 w

s "Confined to Cubicle" where you will live on cold do-nuts
and stale machine vended coffee, writing "shouted" batch programs in upper
case with one statement per line and NO scope delimiters. (Full stops will
be used and every one of them on the officially filed listing must have a
square drawn round it in red pen.). If, at the end of 3 w

s you have not
produced 5000 lines of working code, the sentence will repeat, until you do.

3. You will wear a ski mask to work and not reveal your true identity to
anyone, least of all your co workers. Non-compliance will result in
immediate dismissal, after being tortured to reveal your maternal
Grandmother's maiden name and the encryption key you used for your data and
procedure names.

4. You will be provided with a noiseless keyboard so that no-one knows
whether you are working or not. This is part of the "stealth" training.

5. The MOVE verb is swapped with ADD, and EVALUATE is replaced by
"OCCASIONALLY", IF by "SOMETIMES", ELSE by "OTHERWISE " [oops, I think that
is still part of COBOL...<G>. Pete], and READ and WRITE, OPEN and CLOSE are
swapped. The idea is to create maximum confusion just in case the opposition
manage to crack the maternal Grandmother encryption.

6. Cubicles will be maintained in a state of total chaos so enemy spies
cannot tell whether anyone has worked there recently. Anyone found
organising or clearing their desk before going home, will be punished as
for non-compliance with rule 3 above.

7. There will be no discussion of assignments, easy ones or hard ones. This
is in conformance with the Wagner system of Stealth training (on which these
COBOL standards are modelled, and which we should all be proud to aspire
to.) There can be no discussion anyway, because ALL communication with
co-workers will be by 1024 byte encrypted e-mail. See rule 8).

8. Anyone found speaking will be punished as for non-compliance with rule 3.
Hand written notes are forbidden, unless the recipient agrees to eat them
after reading. To prevent the possibility of ball point impressions being
taken, the whole notepad must be eaten. Co-workers may watch, but this is
the ONLY "entertainment" allowed during working hours.
(The current record is 18 seconds for a complete yellow letter pad, washed
down with water from the bullpen

er, held posthumously by Zweeble
Fudbucket. Unfortunately, the water was infected with Legionnaire's disease
and Fudbucket subsequently died. He received the Stealth COBOL medal which
was presented to his widow by Robert Wagner in person, although as it was a
"Full Stealth Honour" proceeding, Robert was in dress ski mask, and it might
not have been him...)

9. All movement through the facility will be on tip-toe. Stealth is
everything.

10. Anyone who conveys to any person off-site that this is a Stealth COBOL
site, will be summarily shot, without even the benefit of torture to obtain
maternal Grandmother's maiden name. There will be an immediate cover-up to
frame the facility cat for the shooting, using the stealth "dirty tricks"
you had whispered to you by the Drill Sergeant on your boot camp course.

Now eat this document.

Pete.

Jeff York

2004-11-23, 3:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>RULES FOR STEALTH COBOL.(These techniques are Top Secret and Company
>Private. When properly applied they will outsmart the enemy, who will never
>be able to crack our COBOL applications.)
>
>1. All data and.......

<el snippo grande>

>...... by the Drill Sergeant on your boot camp course.
>
>Now eat this document.

Blimey! Sounds just like a place where I used to work! :-)

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Robert Wagner

2004-11-24, 3:55 am

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:29:58 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
!
>
>RULES FOR STEALTH COBOL.(These techniques are Top Secret and Company

>2. You will not reveal the maiden names of any of your family to anyone, on
>pain of 3 w

s "Confined to Cubicle" where you will live on cold do-nuts
>and stale machine vended coffee, writing "shouted" batch programs in upper
>case with one statement per line and NO scope delimiters. (Full stops will
>be used and every one of them on the officially filed listing must have a
>square drawn round it in red pen.). If, at the end of 3 w

s you have not
>produced 5000 lines of working code, the sentence will repeat, until you do.

Hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

You've given me the idea to write a Mainframe Shop Standard manual,
which will document bad programming practices mainframers claim they
no longer use.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-24, 8:55 am

Glad you enjoyed it, Robert.

After I posted it I realised you could take it as a personal attack (which
it most definitely wasn't).

I had fun doing it.

Pete.

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:p468q0tnc26bs51otbjo0e29utcdr30p0r@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:29:58 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> !
>
on[color=darkred]
do-nuts[color=darkred]
upper[color=darkred]
will[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
do.[color=darkred]
>
> Hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
>
> You've given me the idea to write a Mainframe Shop Standard manual,
> which will document bad programming practices mainframers claim they
> no longer use.
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-26, 8:55 am

In article <1ri2q0daadhjft28akko2cnf3spp0i5922@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2004 11:54:36 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
>
>You have no evidence for any of these claims. You're making up 'facts'
>to support a pre-formed conclusion.

Mr Wagner, that Mr Plinston 'has no evidence for any of these claims'
might just possibly be a reason for his stating a belief ('Actually, I
*believe*...' above) and nothing more.

>
>
>I don't pre-judge skill based on nationality or other social factors.

Mr Wagner, who posted that 'Russian programmers don't do well because
they're so opinionated' above? That certainly seems to be a pre-judgement
of skill based on nationality... what am I missing here?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-26, 8:55 am

Robert Wagner

2004-11-26, 3:55 pm

Richard

2004-11-27, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Sponsored Links